John Edwards, Huge Hypocrite

I really just can't stand this guy... he's gotta be one of the biggest phonies in politics. I think I'd rather have Al Gore President over him.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

August 3, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year's release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.

He says he gave that amount to charity, which would also provide tax benefits for Edwards. "We're more than happy to give even more of Murdoch's money to Habitat for Humanity and other good causes," spokesman Eric Schultz told The Post yesterday.

He declined to show proof, however, that Edwards had donated the $500,000 advance or $300,000 expense checks to charity.

Meanwhile, Edwards yesterday attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel is tilted to the right. News Corp. also owns The New York Post.

Clinton declined to respond.

The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees.

Languishing in the polls behind Clinton and Barack Obama, Edwards also has led the Democratic field's boycott of a Fox co-sponsored presidential debate.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said.

Talk about hypocrisy. Dems demonize Bush and repubs every day but are allowed to get away with it. Dems are afraid of a Fox debate because they KNOW they will get asked hard questions. If this bunch is afraid of Fox News, how can they expect to be President?

Getting paid for a book is different than getting a straight donation. Now the question was that a fair price for the book or did they add "donations" and cover it as a price for the book?

I understand the difference in the money... the thing that I find hypocritical is that he's acting as if any donations from Murdoch (or Fox) are covered in toxic slime and must be returned or else the integrity of that candidate is compromised. Meanwhile, he's happy to take hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in compensation from that same guy without batting an eye.

If Murdoch is such a leper, then why didn't Edwards find a different publisher for his book?

Here's another Edwards gem that cracks me up... not only does he "subtly" play the race and gender card with this "what your gut tells you" remark... he also basically gets caught lying by making up polling data.

This is from the New York Observer:

Amongst friends and fund-raisers, he was much more blunt.

“All the empirical evidence shows that I am the strongest general election candidate,” said Mr. Edwards from a small stage as the Chicago traffic flowed mutedly behind a glass-paneled wall.

The reason, he said, was simple:

“What will happen with almost complete certainty, is in December and January, our caucus-goers, the New Hampshire primary voters, will be evaluating who they think is the strongest general election candidate. They like all of us. I mean, that’s the truth. They like me. They like Hillary. And they like Obama. They are trying to decide who they think will be the strongest general election candidate. And that will get more intense, the closer we get to the caucus and primaries.”

Then came the sell:

“Well, this is not even close—who’s the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway.”

To support his argument, he cited a poll that he said showed him outperforming Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama in head-to-head match-ups with leading Republican candidates.

“I saw a poll a week and a half ago, done by an independent polling firm, testing each of us against the top four Republicans, in about, I want to say, this isn’t going to be exactly right, but in about 20 states, mostly swing states,” Mr. Edwards said. “And I beat every Republican in 20 states. All of ‘em. Hillary won in about half the states roughly, close to half, and Obama, I think, won nowhere, if I remember correctly.”

(The Edwards campaign said it could not locate the independent poll that Mr. Edwards was referring to, but pointed to in-house polling from June that they said showed Mr. Edwards as the Democratic candidate with the most success against Republicans in match-ups nationally and in key battleground states.)

The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees.

Wow, now because you work for Fox you cannot donate to the candidate of choice ???

I'm a sub contractor for a radio music show in distribution, (http://www.foxallaccess.com/). Good thing I'm a republican because it looks like my money would get thrown back at me if I donated to this idiots cause, wonder what would happen if I refused to take it back, wonder how that works ??

Okay, hold onto your hats here, but I know some liberal democrats that work for Fox. I happen to know some people that are Republicans that work for CBS radio. Dogs marrying cats, what is going on here...lol.

Now, Brain has come out and admitted that Fox has a right wing bias...conversley he has admitted that CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC have a liberal bias. Funny that the Republicans have no problem debating on those networks and the democrats have flatly refused to debate on Fox.

Until Fox took the air these guys (Dems) knew that they would have an easy time on TV vs. what the Republicans had to go through. Now that its just STARTING to even out the playing field these guys are going crazy.

Edwards would take money from Mike Vick and Moveon.org over Robert Murdoch, now that is funny.

I understand the difference in the money... the thing that I find hypocritical is that he's acting as if any donations from Murdoch (or Fox) are covered in toxic slime and must be returned or else the integrity of that candidate is compromised. Meanwhile, he's happy to take hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in compensation from that same guy without batting an eye.

If Murdoch is such a leper, then why didn't Edwards find a different publisher for his book?

Answer: they probably weren't offering him as much money.

I don't find any hypocracy, because I can see the difference in getting paid for a product and taking a donation as a political backing.

That being said - claiming that someone is so evil (Murdoch) and calling for all donations from NewsCorp to be returned just seems silly and childish to me.

I think if anything, it's the opposite. For example, I would never take a job with Dan Snyder, but if he wanted to donate to my campaign I'd let him.

I think from Edwards viewpoint though, the donations can serve as an influence on one's politics, thus his demand to return donations from a far right influence. But he is under no political duty or obligation by being paid for a service or product he provided. It's just a business deal outside the world of politics - and from a subsidiary of NewsCorp at that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an Edwards fan at all. He reaks with entrenched partisanship, which I detest.

I think from Edwards viewpoint though, the donations can serve as an influence on one's politics, thus his demand to return donations from a far right influence. But he is under no political duty or obligation by being paid for a service or product he provided. It's just a business deal outside the world of politics - and from a subsidiary of NewsCorp at that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an Edwards fan at all. He reaks with entrenched partisanship, which I detest.

Don't ruin Danny's hate for Edwards with logic.

Edwards is scum for sure but that example he brought up was pretty pathetic. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Edwards...that was not one of them IMO.

However I am sure that for the next week or so I will hear Hannity harping on that topic over and over again like the mouth piece shill that he is.

If that first topic was the worst someone could bring up about any of the current candidates or current admin...I would be a happy man.

Sadly there are worse examples out there for the current admin and probably the majority of the candidates.

I love how the Democrats want to boycott Fox News because they "hate" the Democratic party (which is silly), but those same Democrats want to embrace Islamic countries in the Middle East. That is the real hypocracy.

I think from Edwards viewpoint though, the donations can serve as an influence on one's politics, thus his demand to return donations from a far right influence. But he is under no political duty or obligation by being paid for a service or product he provided. It's just a business deal outside the world of politics - and from a subsidiary of NewsCorp at that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an Edwards fan at all. He reaks with entrenched partisanship, which I detest.

donations can serve as an influence on one's politics

I hate that, I know that it is the way it is, but I hate it. I just don't like the fact it cost millions of dollars to get elected.

Also, for the record I know that NewsCorp does not ask you party affiliation during an interview, so Edwards wanting to return campaign donations from NewsCorp employees, even if they are democrats, is just wrong....I almost want to use the racist word here, Edwards is labeling people just on the basis of where they work.

Like me saying I'd never vote for anyone that is a lawyer ambulance chase...

I hate that, I know that it is the way it is, but I hate it. I just don't like the fact it cost millions of dollars to get elected.

Also, for the record I know that NewsCorp does not ask you party affiliation during an interview, so Edwards wanting to return campaign donations from NewsCorp employees, even if they are democrats, is just wrong....I almost want to use the racist word here, Edwards is labeling people just on the basis of where they work.

Like me saying I'd never vote for anyone that is a lawyer ambulance chase...

what about voting for a prosecuting attorney who helped crush organized crime when everyone else was afraid to?

I think from Edwards viewpoint though, the donations can serve as an influence on one's politics, thus his demand to return donations from a far right influence. But he is under no political duty or obligation by being paid for a service or product he provided. It's just a business deal outside the world of politics - and from a subsidiary of NewsCorp at that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an Edwards fan at all. He reaks with entrenched partisanship, which I detest.

BrAinPaiNt;1574336 said:

Don't ruin Danny's hate for Edwards with logic.

Money is money.

How is a political donation more influential to a politician than money slipped into his pocket for a "service rendered"?

That claim makes no sense whatsoever.

If anything, the money given to Edwards for his book is FAR MORE influential to him than the campaign donations the others took.

First of all, it's a much bigger amount. Second of all, it's unrestricted money. Edwards can use that $500,000 for whatever he pleases, while Hillary has to use that $20,000 for campaign-only purposes. Third, the money Edwards took is completely unregulated, while the campaign contributions are heavily monitored and regulated. Fourth, there's transparency in that the donations are a matter of public record and the public can decide for themselves whether or not the donations produced influence for the giver, whereas private transactions are much more opaque.

Please explain how a political donation holds more influence over a candidate than a $500,000 book advance? Because that really doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

A cap on ALL candidates and how much they can not only receive in donations per person and business but also as a total amount for their campaign. Not only that a cap on how much can be spent on your campaign.

All candidates across the board have a cap.

The way it is now it automatically favors the rich or those that can raise the most money.

I would be interested in seeing how it would be if each had the same amount.

Might boil down more to how they debate each other and the actual issues as opposed to smear campaigns, behind the scenes rhetoric, campaign money from big business that pulls strings.

Another thing I would love to see. The Primaries, the debates with the reps for each party...have a cap on them as well.

Think of how much money is spent for these lavish Primaries. The Dem and Repub parties during elections. The RNC/DNC.

MILLIONS are spent on some of these parties and platforms for these guys to get up and run their mouths.

I would rather that money go towards better equipment for the troops. Towards taking care of the troops after they have been injured and can not serve, money going towards a multitude of quality charities.

Not into the parties for a bunch of rich hypocrites up there running their mouths.

A cap on ALL candidates and how much they can not only receive in donations per person and business but also as a total amount for their campaign. Not only that a cap on how much can be spent on your campaign.

All candidates across the board have a cap.

The way it is now it automatically favors the rich or those that can raise the most money.

I would be interested in seeing how it would be if each had the same amount.

Might boil down more to how they debate each other and the actual issues as opposed to smear campaigns, behind the scenes rhetoric, campaign money from big business that pulls strings.

Another thing I would love to see. The Primaries, the debates with the reps for each party...have a cap on them as well.

Think of how much money is spent for these lavish Primaries. The Dem and Repub parties during elections. The RNC/DNC.

MILLIONS are spent on some of these parties and platforms for these guys to get up and run their mouths.

I would rather that money go towards better equipment for the troops. Towards taking care of the troops after they have been injured and can not serve, money going towards a multitude of quality charities.

Not into the parties for a bunch of rich hypocrites up there running their mouths.

How is a political donation more influential to a politician than money slipped into his pocket for a "service rendered"?

That claim makes no sense whatsoever.

If anything, the money given to Edwards for his book is FAR MORE influential to him than the campaign donations the others took.

First of all, it's a much bigger amount. Second of all, it's unrestricted money. Edwards can use that $500,000 for whatever he pleases, while Hillary has to use that $20,000 for campaign-only purposes. Third, the money Edwards took is completely unregulated, while the campaign contributions are heavily monitored and regulated. Fourth, there's transparency in that the donations are a matter of public record and the public can decide for themselves whether or not the donations produced influence for the giver, whereas private transactions are much more opaque.

Please explain how a political donation holds more influence over a candidate than a $500,000 book advance? Because that really doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

But maybe I'm just confused by my "hate".

I believe that indeed is a large part of it...and sorry if I am blunt but I do believe it.

I would be willing to bet money, well I don't have any but you get the picture, that if Fred Thompson had received money from a liberal network, for doing work and not political donations, you would not be so quick to come in and scream hypocrite.

A cap on ALL candidates and how much they can not only receive in donations per person and business but also as a total amount for their campaign. Not only that a cap on how much can be spent on your campaign.

All candidates across the board have a cap.

The way it is now it automatically favors the rich or those that can raise the most money.

I would be interested in seeing how it would be if each had the same amount.

Might boil down more to how they debate each other and the actual issues as opposed to smear campaigns, behind the scenes rhetoric, campaign money from big business that pulls strings.

Another thing I would love to see. The Primaries, the debates with the reps for each party...have a cap on them as well.

Think of how much money is spent for these lavish Primaries. The Dem and Repub parties during elections. The RNC/DNC.

MILLIONS are spent on some of these parties and platforms for these guys to get up and run their mouths.

I would rather that money go towards better equipment for the troops. Towards taking care of the troops after they have been injured and can not serve, money going towards a multitude of quality charities.

Not into the parties for a bunch of rich hypocrites up there running their mouths.

What you suggest actually is in place in some ways. If a candidate takes federal matching funds, then they are restricted in how much they can spend. But those like Hillary (and probably either nominee this time around) who can raise more than that limit end up rejecting the public matching funds and therefore face no cap.

If you forced everyone to have a cap, then I think you'd see a lot more money going to PACs, 527s and other Swift Vets and MoveOn type groups then.

The money is looking to go somewhere, and if you say "candidate X can only raise $30 million" then every dollar over that is going to find its way to a group that is doing something to help candidate X.

And if you say that those groups can't spend any money on the election, then you have a case where the groups that can (unions, etc) have an undue influence. And if you bar them, then the media basically gets to push out their opinion unopposed.

How is a political donation more influential to a politician than money slipped into his pocket for a "service rendered"?

That claim makes no sense whatsoever.

If anything, the money given to Edwards for his book is FAR MORE influential to him than the campaign donations the others took.

First of all, it's a much bigger amount. Second of all, it's unrestricted money. Edwards can use that $500,000 for whatever he pleases, while Hillary has to use that $20,000 for campaign-only purposes. Third, the money Edwards took is completely unregulated, while the campaign contributions are heavily monitored and regulated. Fourth, there's transparency in that the donations are a matter of public record and the public can decide for themselves whether or not the donations produced influence for the giver, whereas private transactions are much more opaque.

Please explain how a political donation holds more influence over a candidate than a $500,000 book advance? Because that really doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

But maybe I'm just confused by my "hate".

Frankly, because you are making an enormous leap in assuming that he was 'slipped' the money back door. Authors get advances from publishers for books, like he did. He got paid for a service rendered, from Harper Collins, a subsidiary of NewsCorp. This happens everyday, but just based off this article you are automatically accusing both parties of the transaction of devious pursuits, without a lick of evidence to support that conjecture.

He got paid for a non-political business transaction, and yet I am to automatically assume that this was a seditious act? Please.